AN UNMARRIED mother has won a landmark legal battle to claim widowed parent’s allowance for her children after the death of her partner. Mother-of-four Siobhan McLaughlin, 46, yesterday hailed the ruling as a “victory for children” after the Supreme Court said it was unlawful to deny her the funds.

Related articles

Her lawyers argued the state’s refusal to give her the benefits amounted to discrimination against children born out of wedlock.

Ms McLaughlin told how Mr Adams, who worked as a groundsman, was a widower when they met and his wife had made him promise not to remarry after she died.

The couple, from Armoy, Co Antrim in Northern Ireland, lived together throughout their relationship but they never tied the knot.

Mr Adams died aged 60 when their children were aged between 11 and 19.

He had made sufficient contributions for her to claim a widowed parent’s allowance had they married.

But her claim was refused by the Northern Ireland Department for Communities.

Proud father John Adams and his young children (Image: UNKNOWN)

Ms McLaughlin, who had been a stay-at-home mother, supported their children by working as a special needs classroom assistant and took a job as a cleaner and hotel housekeeper to make ends meet.

Her case was taken up by Citizen’s Advice and she celebrated her win yesterday following an “emotional roller coaster ride”.

She said: “I have cried, I have beamed with joy, I have cried more, it’s been surreal. I am really happy.

“Throughout all of this the only thing I was focusing on was the injustice of children and the rights of those children that were born out of wedlock and how they haven’t got a voice.”

Flanked by Billy and Rebecca at the Royal Courts of Justice in Belfast, she said: “The children have been brilliant. They just said to me, ‘It doesn’t matter what the outcome is for us, Mum. You’ve done brilliant’.

“I hope that my succeeding gives others the confidence and courage to continue to challenge the unfairness and inequalities in our laws.”

Siobhan McLaughlin happy (Image: PA)

A majority of four Supreme Court judges to one ruled that the current law is “incompatible” with human rights legislation.

Court President Lady Hale said the purpose of the allowance was to “diminish the financial loss” caused to families with children by the death of a parent.

She added: “That loss is the same whether or not the parents are married or in a civil partnership with one another.”

Ms McLaughlin’s solicitor, Laura Banks, said the ruling was a “significant victory” for thousands of other families across the UK.

She said: “An estimated 2,000 families each year are turned away for bereavement benefits because of this legislation which the Supreme Court has today clearly stated is unjustifiably discriminatory.

“We are absolutely delighted with this landmark decision and the tremendous impact it should have on the lives of families in times of great need. We consider that it finally puts an end to this shameful, almost Victorian, discrimination.

Related articles

“We urge the Government to act without delay to implement the required changes to the law.

Alison Penny, of the Childhood Bereavement Network, said: “We urge Parliament to amend the relevant legislation as quickly as possible and to clarify the position for those parents who were previously deemed ineligible.”

Last year the widowed parent’s benefit was replaced by a bereavement support payment for people who were married or in civil partnerships – a lump sum of up to £3,500 and monthly payments of £350 for up to 18 months.

It is estimated it would cost £300million in the first four years to extend the benefit to cohabitees.

Winning was a big team effort

Solicitor Laura Banks has been described by colleagues as "Northern Ireland's Erin Brockovich".

Asked about the comparison with the feisty lawyer played by Julia Roberts in the 2000 film, she said: "Well, I wouldn't go that far but I'll take the compliment!" Ms Banks, who studied law at Queen's University, Belfast, said it was through working at Citizens Advice that she became "hooked" on addressing injustice.

It was there she first learned of the lack of bereavement benefits for cohabiting couples with children. She said: "It opened my eyes to injustices that I had no idea existed."

A chance encounter with barrister Laura McMahon, who joined her at legal firm Francis Hanna & Co last year, was "pivotal" in getting the case off the ground.

Ms Banks explained: "She found legal arguments to support us. It was obvious from our first meeting that she was a trailblazer, having taken on the Government in many significant cases."

Should unmarried mothers recieve widowed parents' benefit?

This is a hugely important case which will have a major impact on a great number of families across the UK.

With cohabitation on the rise, the issue as to whether unmarried parents should be able to access financial support following the death of a partner is a vital one.

The Supreme Court has declared that the law in Northern Ireland is incompatible with the human rights of a surviving parent and their children.

Although this judgment strictly speaking only applies to legislation in Northern Ireland, the law is essentially the same throughout the UK.

We consider it is clear that there would be an unjustified discrimination to a family anywhere in the UK.

It is for Parliament to amend the law to ensure that affected children are not further prejudiced simply because their parents were not married.

Ann Widdecombe Daily Express columnist [GETTY]

NO Says Ann Widdecombe Daily Express columnist.

Although it is easy to sympathise with Siobhan McLaughlin, nevertheless this judgment seems perverse.

Siobhan and John Adams were free to marry but they made a choice not to and in doing so forfeited the legal protection enjoyed by a wife and children.

To award those protections without any change in the law is to undermine marriage.

Those of us who believe in marriage believe also that it should confer unique rights which are not available outside of marriage. Otherwise there is no incentive for anyone to marry and it renders civil as opposed to religious marriage utterly meaningless.

If we are to do away with the legal rights and obligations that attach to marriage, we might as well do away with marriage itself except for those with a religious persuasion.